Science Cheerleader

I’m an R. Surprised an R would dedicate her career to science literacy and citizen participation in science and policy? Me too!   I can understand why Newt Gingrich isn’t keen on spending public dollars to create, yet another, Congressional agency. But he’s wrong to think the Office of Technology Assessment, which he axed in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, was a waste of public dollars and resources. The scientists and policy wonks who worked there published hundreds of reports at the request of Congress to help them make sense of often complicated science and technology policy matters. You can find archives of the reports here. Many are still referenced today.

Last year, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it has sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I’m thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA.

I stumbled upon the OTA as a graduate student at UPenn (this is me on graduation day with comedian Yakov Smirnoff, seriously!) where my History and Sociology of Science professor handed me an assignment to “write about the rise and the fall of the OTA.” I read every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA. I even met with Newt Gingrich and Rep. Rush Holt and chatted with Rep. Vern Elhers and several of the architects of the OTA.
I was convinced that Congress was lost a bit without its only source of dedicated, nonpartisan tech assessments and believed the Office should be refunded (it was never really killed by Congress…it was just stripped of its $23million +/- budget).

However, in this era of public participation, open source, collaboration, and transparency, I sought to open a new, decentralized, 21st Century OTA, one that would provide a mechanism to both inform the public and seek their input before Bills are posted for public comment (who really comments on posted Bills besides lobbyists and special interest groups anyway?). It’s not an entirely new idea. Richard Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, more than hinted at this suggestion back in the 80s. Ironically, following a major public, political and economic disaster surrounding the 1990s roll out of genetically modified foods in Europe, the E.U. opened parliamentary OTAs with a twist: the science and technology assessment undertaken by the experts at their OTAs often include citizen participation as this has been found to help assess risk, create a better informed public, and better understand societal implications of emerging technologies. All of which are key ingredients in good policy making decisions, no?  Do you want scientists or special interest groups to represent you and your questions/concerns societal impacts of science and emerging technologies? Congress knows no more than you do about these and many other scientific issues and they openly admit this. While I think it’s imperative for scientists to drive a discussion and impart their expertise on such matters, it’s equally vital that WE are afforded the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on these matters BEFORE Bills are created.
This is where the organizers of the current effort to reopen the OTA (the science community) and I differ. For the most part, they either do not understand or they don’t see the value in public participation. I can understand why if recent Town Hall meetings are what they’re basing their opinions on…but that’s not the type of participation I’m advocating for. I’m talking about a deliberate, well-constructed, inclusive approach that’s been proven to be successful in Europe (and even in China for crying out loud) and here in the U.S. although those efforts were not directly tied to Congress.

For this reason, while I wish the scientists well in their effort to persuade Congress to refund the old OTA (for the most part, although Congress did recently appropriate funds to the Government Accountability Office specifically for “technology assessments” )  I am helping to organize a new network that values the significance of both expert and citizen analysis in technology assessment. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming weeks. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join me for the journey.
In the interim, here’s what Newt recently said about the OTA. Editorial note here: this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA w/o public participation-not only is he suggesting an “expert-only” approach, but a mere handful of experts at that. This former cheerleader can smell a clique a mile away

Talk about a fun radio interview! Last week, the Science Cheerleader was featured on Weekend Workout (”a fun, entertaining, edifying and sometimes twisted look at the world of fitness, food, and supplements”).

My chat about science literacy, with the host Jose Antonio–who didn’t shy away from asking some provocative questions–followed a conversation on “functional underwear.” Success! Truth be told, it feels great each time I can spread the gospel of science to a new audience. Thanks Weekend Workout!

Pictured with me are David Guston (Professor of Science Policy at Arizona State University) and on the right is David Rejeski (Director, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars). The three of us, plus Richard Sclove (Founder, Loka Institute; U.S. Advisor, Worldwide Views on Global Climate Change) are hashing out a plan to create a participatory technology assessment agency. (Read: citizen input in federal tech policy discussions.)  Very exciting stuff. I’ll keep you posted on developments.
On Wednesday, we met with at the Wilson Center with Rich Hung (Government Accountability Office) and John Wonderlich (Sunlight Foundation) to discuss this very topic. Then, Dave, Dave and I had lunch and posed with this giant pumpkin. So, how much do you think this pumpkin weighs?
After lunch, I skipped across the street to the Museum of American History where I bumped into this wax replica of Ira Remsen (1846-1927)the first Professor of Chemistry at Johns Hopkins. He pushed for the support of “pure” science for its own sake instead of the more traditional “outdoor” sciences such as natural history and geology. Remsen is credited with creating a pioneering lab at Hopkins, later modeled by other universities. These labs are considered the main training ground for American scientists.

In the news.”Science’s Rah-Rah Gal:
Philly’s Darlene Cavalier Cheers for Discovery”

“A former 76ers cheerleader has taken up the cause for promoting science education among adults, and she is turning the old beauty vs. brains debate into a full-blown marketing campaign.”

That’s the lead-in to a recent feature article in Keystone Edge, a newspaper that “tells the story of the new economy in Pennsylvania–a narrative of creative people and businesses, new development, cool places to live, and the best places to work and play.  Each Thursday, the Web site and weekly online magazine presents original stories, video and photography to tell that story, from Pittsburgh to Philly.” This past Thursday, Science Cheerleader was featured.

Here’s the article, as reported by Rory Sweeney. (more…)

My podcast interview with Sean from ScienceChat (Ireland). In this piece we talk about science literacy and citizen involvement in science policy. That was fun, Sean! Although, for some reason, I sound a little like Hillary Clinton when. she. was. on. the. campaign. trail. (Very de-li-ber-ate delivery.)

Do you know where your Congressional representatives and Senators stand on the health reform issue? Research!America (the nation’s largest not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance), makes it easy to find out, through the “Your Congress, Your Health” constituent education initiative. Now, it’s as simple as visiting the website and typing in your zip code to learn more about your reps’ positions. And YOU get to weigh in with your opinions on this and other health-related legislative matters.

Thanks, subscriber Marilyn (who happens to work at Research!America) for calling attention to this terrific project! Here’s an excerpt from an email Marilyn sent us a little while back:

As President Obama and Congress proceed to revamp the American health care system, health reform will continue to dominate the national dialogue. Securing funding for medical, health and scientific research must be a critical piece of that discussion.

Your Congress-Your Health asks all members of Congress their positions and priorities on health reform, as well as health-related research. An initiative of Research!America and more than 20 partner organizations, the 2009 Your Congress-Your Health questionnaire is now online along with some initial responses from Congress. Knowing where Congress stands on these issues should be top of mind for your readers and all Americans.

There is important work to be done for health reform, but it does not mean that we should stop working on the future of health. Research is the only way to transform U.S. health care from a “sick-care” system to a system that prevents disease. Moreover, committing to a strategic investment in research will help lift America out of its current economic crisis by creating jobs and ensuring that we decrease the disease burden that hurts our health and our economy.

On the site, your readers can see if their members of Congress have responded to the survey and, if not, use links on the site to let Congress know that their views on these issues are important to their constituents. We also have public opinion poll data available featuring questions similar to those we are asking Congress.

Let me know if you have any questions about Your Congress-Your Health. Thanks for all you do for science and science advocacy. Regards, Marilyn J. Walker, Research!America

From one of my favorite writers, favorite sites: Nancy Scola at TechPresident.com. Below, she’s referencing a chat that took place at the Gov 2.0 conference I was covering for Discover Magazine. I’ll have more on that later. Gov 2.0 represents some radical thinking and I, for one, am excited about the possibilities. However, as Scola addresses below, there’s at least one “fault line” in need of further examination.

There’s was a telling, if all too brief, exchange between Texas Republican Representative John Culberson and the west coast publisher and conference convener Tim O’Reilly at this morning’s Gov 2.0 Summit that exposed a fault line that runs through the whole of this “government 2.0″ discussion. One wishes that Culberson and O’Reilly had kept up their back-and-forth rather than moving on to less contentious subjects, but it boils down to this: Is this new movement, such as it is, fundamentally an aggressive bid to reform a political system that has devolved into a mess of corruption and exclusion? Or is it instead an apolitical course correction aimed at simply making government more efficient? The answer, if there is one, will like shape what the future of government 2.0 looks like, and whether we’ll ever be able to ultimately judge whether it’s been a success. Read full article.

Data.gov has it all.

Concerned about flu outbreaks? Check out FluView, a national flu activity map.

Learn about the quality of your local drinking water or view an EPA map pinpointing a variety of air, water and land pollution sources.

From John Collier: A few years ago, for her 3^rd grade “States of the USA” project, my daughter picked the Hawkeye State – Iowa. Many people view Iowa as just one vast corn field stuck between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, but my daughter likes Iowa because the state does have many interesting facets. Her presentation was in the form of a game show similar to “Jeopardy!” and she asked questions such as…

1. What starship captain of the USS Enterprise will be born in Riverside, Iowa in the year 2233?” (Answer:James T. Kirk)
2. “This famous Iowa native won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on developing new and higher-yielding varieties of wheat, which reduced the likelihood of famine in developing countries. Who was this Green Revolution pioneer?”

The answer to question #2 is “Norman Borlaug”, who died on September 12^th, 2009 at the age of 95.

While doing the research on Dr. Borlaug, my family became fascinated by the story of his life: How he lived in other countries and did research to increase crop yields, how he helped stop almost certain famine in parts of Asia (thereby saving possibly up to a billion lives) and how – to the best of our knowledge – he may be the only Nobel Peace Prize winner with a rap song written specifically in his honor.

Like most kids, there are some days when young Norman didn’t want to go to school. His grandfather Nels told him: “Norm-boy, it’s better to fill your head now if you want to fill your belly later.”

If there was ever an major intersection between science and public policy, figuring out how to feed our teaming (and increasing) billions surely is it. The words of Norman Borlaug’s grandfather were important 90 years ago, and even more important today.

Image credit:  AgBioWorld

One of the projects I’m working on for Discover Magazine is a four-part energy event series on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and two professional engineering societies (IEEE and ASME).

Why energy? In short:

“The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy,” President Obama.

Each of the four Capitol Hill events features a scientist and a policy wonk as they present some straight talk–to Hill staffers, media reps, scientists/engineers, business leaders and the general public–on four key energy topics:

Bio Fuels, Energy Storage, Increasing Efficiencies (coming September 17), and Transitional Technologies (October 15).

The live, dynamic discussions are videotaped and packaged with the speakers’ powerpoint presentations. You can view them here on discovermagazine.com.  I promise, you’ll learn a great deal of important information on specific issues of concern to our environment, economy, security and general well-being of our children. You’ll even learn how Dan Nocera from MIT splits water to make fuel and why he believes the best solar storage is photosynthesis (storing solar power has proven to be quite a challenge). See Energy Storage.

Science Cheerleader reporter, Dr. John Ohab, attended one of the events and has some behind-the-scenes video interviews with the panelists, sponsors and me. We’ll get that posted soon.